Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Shear deformation of bridgmanite and magnesiowüstite aggregates at lower mantle conditions by Jennifer Girard, George Amulele, Robert Farla, Anwar Mohiuddin,

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Shear deformation of bridgmanite and magnesiowüstite aggregates at lower mantle conditions by Jennifer Girard, George Amulele, Robert Farla, Anwar Mohiuddin,"— Presentation transcript:

1 Shear deformation of bridgmanite and magnesiowüstite aggregates at lower mantle conditions
by Jennifer Girard, George Amulele, Robert Farla, Anwar Mohiuddin, and Shun-ichiro Karato Science Volume 351(6269): January 8, 2016 Published by AAAS

2 Fig. 1 The rotational Drickamer apparatus (RDA) cell assembly used to reach the shallow lower mantle conditions. The rotational Drickamer apparatus (RDA) cell assembly used to reach the shallow lower mantle conditions. (A) The anvils, gaskets, and cell assembly for the RDA deformation experiment; (B) a side view of the cell assembly; and (C) a top view of the cell assembly. Diffracted x-ray comes mostly from one side of a sample closer to the x-ray detectors. Jennifer Girard et al. Science 2016;351: Published by AAAS

3 Fig. 2 A plot of the equivalent stress in bridgmanite and magnesiowüstite as a function of strain.
A plot of the equivalent stress in bridgmanite and magnesiowüstite as a function of strain. Run conditions are given in Table 1. Stress in bridgmanite was estimated by using diffraction peaks (110) and (112). Stress in magnesiowüstite was estimated by using diffraction peaks (200) and (220). In both cases, the stresses shown here are the arithmetic average of stresses estimated from these planes. Some hint of strain weakening can be seen, particularly for bridgmanite (hatched regions are drawn to guide the eyes). Results from beta 74 are based on estimated strain (strain marker was not visible). Also, the pressure and temperature conditions for beta 74 are different from all others. Bars represent the errors. Errors are given for one standard deviation and are due to the uncertainties in the peak shift and the fitting errors to equation S1 (supplementary materials). Jennifer Girard et al. Science 2016;351: Published by AAAS

4 Fig. 3 SEM (scanning electron microscope) back-scattering images of the recovered sample from the run gamma 21. SEM (scanning electron microscope) back-scattering images of the recovered sample from the run gamma 21. (A) A back-scattered electron image of the RDA cell assembly cut along the diameter. The sample position, alumina ring, and TiC central electrode are labeled for clarity. The layers of material above the sample are also identified (ZrO2, Al2O3, TiC+Diamond, BN). (B) A back-scattered electron image of the recovered sample from the run gamma 21, deformed up to 100% strain. The light gray grains are mangesiowüstite, and the dark gray grains are bridgmanite. An oblate shape shows a strain ellipsoid corresponding to the bulk strain of 100%. Arrows indicate the sense of shear. (C) A back-scattered electron image of an undeformed sample from the run gamma 23. This sample was annealed at 27.4 GPa and 2140 K and quenched after 1.5 hours. Jennifer Girard et al. Science 2016;351: Published by AAAS


Download ppt "Shear deformation of bridgmanite and magnesiowüstite aggregates at lower mantle conditions by Jennifer Girard, George Amulele, Robert Farla, Anwar Mohiuddin,"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google